1977 PLP 307 (PLC)

Syed Mohabbat Shah for Petitioner. Abdul Rashid for Respondent. This an application under section 35 read with section 32 (I‑A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter mentioned the Ordinance filed by the Multan Electric Employees Union trough its General Secretary hereinafter mentioned as the petitioner Union against the Managing Director Multan, Electric Supply Company Multan hereinafter mentioned as the respondent Management. It is maintained in the petition that a demand notice dated 25th May 1974, followed by a strike notice dated 5th June 1974, being served on the respondent Management bilateral negotiation continued upto 11th November 1974, but no settlement could be achieved. The parties were advised to move the Labour Court for the disposal of the dispute. The demand notice contained the following demands: (1) Mr. Muhammad Maqbool Siddique Head Cashier was dismissed from service and the order of his dismissal was confirmed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore, he has been re‑employed by the respondent Management illegally and he is damaging tide interest of the MESCO by his subversive activities. He should therefore be directed to be dismissed from service. (2) The respondent Management is covering up the misdeeds of Gulsher and Ghulam Rasul employees despite written complaints being filed against them by the petitioner‑Union. Their cases should be enquired into and they should be punished without any delay. (3) Ever since the Company i. e. MESCO has been nationalised it has become an area of a few corrupt and selfish officers the pilfering of Electric energy has gone to the highest pitch and the selfish elements in the Company having connived with the Customers are damaging the financial integrity of the Company. In order to eradicate the malpractices from the Company's spheres of activities ,an inspection team should be constitued cons1sting of honest and industrious employees to be appointed at the recommendation of the Moscow Union which body should be authorised to take action against the corrupt elements in the company. The petition was res1sted on behalf of the respondent Management and it was contested that the strike notice dated 5th June 1974 or the demand notice were not validly served nor were they based on any Industrial Dispute as defined in the Ordinance. Mr. Muhammad Maqbool, Head Cashier, it was pleaded, was given fresh appointment.‑vide letter dated 22nd February 1972, at the instance of the petitioner‑Union on the intervention of the then honourable Labour Advisor to the Punjab Government Mr. M. Afzal Watoo. In such situation no dispute could be raised regarding this re‑employment. As regards Demand No. 2 it was maintained that Gulsher and Ghulam Rasul, employees have been duly charge‑sheeted and proper ,enquiries against them are under way and on that score it could not be said that they have been sheltered by the Management. As for Demand No. 3 it was contended that it relates, purely to admin1strative discretion of the Management to constitute any such inspection team. This demand could not be pressed for as a demand involving admin1strative and financial implication. I have heard the parties argument and gone through the relevant document. It is quite obvious that Mr. Muhammad Maqbool Siddiqi after being finally dismissed from service was re‑employed at the very request of the petitioner. The relevant representation bearing the signature of Mohabbat Shah, General Secretary, has been shown to me on the record of the Mesco in which Muhammad Maqbool Siddiqi was requested to be re‑employed. Moreover it was the admin1strative discretion of the respondent Management to accept the re‑employment of Mr. Siddiqi. I could not be referred to any service rule or regulation standing in the way of such re‑employment which was effected with the intervention of the Min1ster of the Government. As regard the alleged misconduct of Gulsher and Ghulam Rasul, employees regular enquiries have already been lodged against them which fact could not be controverted on behalf of the petitioner Union. In such situation it could not be said that any misconduct of these employees has been shielded or covered up by the Management. However it has been noticed that the aforesaid employees were charge‑sheeted in April, 1974 and so far the enquiry has not been completed against them. Such enquiries relating to the charges of corruption must always be completed within reasonable time. The respondent Management is, therefore, directed to complete these enquiries as soon as possible within the maximum period of three months and disposed them of finally in due course. As regards Demand No. 3, it can scarcely be regarded a comprehensive and practicable demand apart from the financial implication, if any, involved in it, because the corrupt practices indulged in by the employees of the company can be pointed out by any person and the wrong doers can be brought to book in due course. A work council is admittedly to be already in ex1stence in the company which under section 24 of the ordinance must cons1st of the representatives of the employer and the workmen in equal number. The function of the work Council are to promote measures for securing and preserving good relation between an employer and the workmen and also to promote security of employment for the workmen and condition of safety, health and job satisfaction while endeavouring to maintain continuous sympathy and understanding between the employer and the workman. In the presence of the said statutory body it is purely discretionary with the respondent Management to contemplate the forming of an inspection team for providing against malpractices of the officials and pilfering of the electric energy by the general Public. Since the constitution of any such body involves careful and elaborate consideration of admin1strative nature and the alleged malpractices and the pilfering are not the finally decided matters the respondent Management cannot be directed forthwith to act upon this demand. It requires a comprehensive proposal with the was and means to put the same in practice and can be taken up for due consideration by the respondent, Management if so, advised under the circumstances in the normal course of Administration. In view of what has been discussed above the petition is disposed of accordingly.